It comes down to this. Either we don't increase food supply now, so that population levels off soon, limited as it inevitably is by the food that sustains people, or we keep on adding to the food supply as we have done every year in the past 10,000 years; and when we can no longer keep up with the vertical population growth, we experience overshoot and collapse, with a sudden massive die-off of at least 10 billion people.

If we were to succeed in limiting food before that happened, we might be able to level off and then gradually lose population through the natural deaths of all those living, until we finally reach a population size that the world can sustain.

This may be the most humane way to deal with the present problem, but the attitudes to achieve it are not yet present among the people who could carry this out.

Denniston has performed many abortions and sterilizations without complications at comparatively low cost, but he has also made mistakes. A major cause of these mistakes is the attitude of the medical profession toward abortions specifically, and women in general. Doctors who perform abortions are part of a profession that has not yet accepted abortion as a woman's right. Most doctors see abortion only as a way to control population growth.

Despite the above writer's assertion above that abortion is a "woman's right", now might be a good time to remind pro-choice readers, fellow travellers ("I'm not pro-abortion!") and useful idiots at blogs like Sound Politics that abortion is not about women's rights, or choosing the woman over the fetus, or even freedom. It is about the right of those like Dr. Denniston to profit off the killing of unborn children. To people like Dr. Denniston women are completely beside the point.

Norma McCorvey spoke at the It's About Life Conference in Kennewick in March 2006. She was so graciously welcomed and loved by the conference attendees that she's agreed to come back again. Here are the details:

Tuesday, November 28, 2006

"Admit the trauma, to some women and some men, of abortion. Reach out to those for whom the experience has not been an opportunity for `growth and maturation'. Provide a support group; at the very least ask about it!"

Friday, November 17, 2006

The following is a letter I sent via email to the Washinton State Pharmaceutical Association.

Greetings:

I'm writing because I need your help clarifying something. As you know, there has been much discussion lately over the rules for pharmacists when filling prescriptions/requests for so-called Emergency Contraception, or Plan B, sometimes called the Morning After Pill.

The WSPA seems to have no moral objections to this drug, and does not seem to describe it anywhere as an abortifacient.

Yet it is my understanding that one of the primary means by which this drug is designed to prevent pregnancy is by preventing a fertilized egg, or zygote, from implanting in the uterus. And since the emergence of a zygote represents the moment at which a new human being comes into existence, deliberately causing this new human life to fail to achieve its natural means of sustenance and development, via implantation, would seem to be clearly intervening to end a human life.

If you do a site search with google for the term abortifacient, one document which comes up, a PDF file called, "APhA Special Report: A Continuing Education Program for Pharmacists: Emergency Contraception: The Pharmacist's Role". In it we read:

"Misconceptions persist about how emergency contraception works, particularly the misconception that emergency contraception acts as an abortifacient."

Further, they add:

"Because emergency contraceptives act before implantation and cannot disrupt an established pregnancy, they are not considered to be abortifacients."

"Some people believe that all oral contraceptives (including those used as emergency contraceptives) are abortifacients, because they believe that pregnancy begins with the fertilization of an egg rather than with implantation of the blastocyst in the endometrium."

They cite a 1999 press release, no longer available online, from the Family Research Council. Citing a conservative public policy organization as the only source for such a widely held medical fact is disingenuous to say the least. And to lump in opposition to "emergency contraception" (which deliberately operates post-fertilization) to regular contraception (which can act post-fertilization, unknowingly to many users) hardly seems like an honest move.

Suppose we allow that a pregnancy starts with implantation, and that an abortion is the interruption of a pregnancy, the subsequent deduction that "EC" does not cause an abortion is completely beside the point. The point is:

DOES IT END A HUMAN LIFE OR NOT? AND SHOULD WOULD-BE CUSTOMERS BE TOLD THIS?

Ronald Reagan was elected twice in a national landslide. A landslide that included the state of Washington.

Despite the formidable obstacles before us, we must not lose heart. This is not the first time our country has been divided by a Supreme Court decision that denied the value of certain human lives. The Dred Scott decision of 1857 was not overturned in a day, or a year, or even a decade. At first, only a minority of Americans recognized and deplored the moral crisis brought about by denying the full humanity of our black brothers and sisters; but that minority persisted in their vision and finally prevailed. They did it by appealing to the hearts and minds of their countrymen, to the truth of human dignity under God. From their example, we know that respect for the sacred value of human life is too deeply engrained in the hearts of our people to remain forever suppressed. But the great majority of the American people have not yet made their voices heard, and we cannot expect them to — any more than the public voice arose against slavery — until the issue is clearly framed and presented.

The Republicans party can either be known as the party that restored the promise of the Right To Life, or they can be known as the party that was an accomplice to one of the world's great injustices. The choice is ours.

Many times when family and friends try to "help" pro-abortion politicians by voting for them, they are actually making it easier for them to continue in the progression of their addiction.

This baffling phenomenon is called enabling, which takes many forms, all of which have the same effect -- allowing the pro-abortion politician to avoid the consequences of his actions. This in turn allows the pro-abortion politician to continue merrily along his pro-abortion policy ways, secure in the knowledge that no matter how much he screws up, somebody will always be there to rescue him from his mistakes and re-elect him next year.

Helping is doing something for a someone that they are not capable of doing themselves. Enabling is doing for a someone things that they could, and should be doing themselves.

Simply, enabling creates a atmosphere in which the pro-choice politician can comfortably continue his unacceptable behavior.

Are you an enabler?Here's a few questions that might help determine the difference between helping and enabling the pro-abortion politician in your life:

1. Have you ever "called in sick" for the pro-abortion politician, lying about his symptoms by saying things like "He's not really pro-abortion, his position is very complex"?

2. Have you accepted part of the blame, or blamed others, for his (or her) pro-abortion behavior by telling yourself that "there's no consensus on when life begins"?

3. Have you avoided talking about his pro-abortion policies out of fear of his response?

4. Have you bailed him out of jail or paid for his legal fees?

5. Have you paid bills that he was supposed to have paid himself?

6. Have you loaned him money for his campaign?

7. Have you endorsed him in hopes of strengthening the relationship so that you'll "have a place at the table"?

8. Have you given him "one more chance" every election and then another and another?

9. Have you threatened to stop voting for or endorsing him and didn't?

10. Have you finished a campaign or project that the pro-abortion politician failed to complete himself?

Of course, if you answered "yes" to any of these questions, you at some point in time have enabled the pro-abortion politician to avoid his own responsibilities to the nation. Rather than "help" the pro-abortion politican, you have actually made it easier for him, and the nation, to get worse.

As long as the pro-abortion politician has his enabling devices in place, it is easy for him to continue to deny he has a problem -- since most of his problems getting elected are being "solved" by those around him. Only when he is forced to face the consequences of his own actions, will it finally begin to sink in how deep his problem has become.

Those kinds of choices are difficult. They require "detachment with love." But it is love. Unless the pro-abortion politician is allowed to face the consequences of his own actions, he will never realize just how big a problem his pro-abortion policies have become -- to himself and those around him.

Monday, November 06, 2006

We aren’t afraid to post the real exchange. I’m assuming that the additional comments Mr. Simpson has left in the comments box came later than the version I received. I’ve pulled them out and posted them here for all to see.

Mr. Simpson: I'll attach a copy of the mailer since you apparently have not seen it. I did not violate anyone's rights, on the contrary, I am trying to protect people's rights against activist pharmacists who choose to lead the charge to prevent women from preventing an unwanted pregnancy.

My mailer stated my position clearly: “Decisions about family planning should be made by women, with their families and doctors. Not by pharmacists, insurance companies or politicians.” Mr. Ramseth stated his position clearly in the newspaper: In the mind of pharmacist Jim Ramseth, there is a moral hierarchy when it comes to preventing pregnancy: Selling condoms and birth control pills is OK. But the emergency contraception known as Plan B is not, and Ramseth refuses to provide it.

How is repeating his own statement a violation of the Constitution?

AIW: We’ve attached the flier here for all to review. The idea that Mr. Ramseth is “leading any kind of charge” is simply laughable. I don’t know him but he seems to be an honest man trying to make an honest living who doesn’t want to participate in the taking of a human life or the abuse of women by rapists, abusive boyfriends, Planned Parenthood and the pharmaceutical industry.

Mr. Ramseth is free to violate his own conscience. You are free to violate your conscience, which you are doing quite nicely as you go skipping down the lane with Planned Parenthood and NARAL. A woman is free to violate her own conscience by procuring abortion or contraception. The problem is that YOU hope to use the power of the state to force Mr. Ramseth to violate his conscience and deny him an opportunity to earn a living. That is against the constitution of the state of Washington and United States. Maybe you just don't understand the First Amendment. Here's a link to the Constitution.

In fact, the court in Chicago agrees with me and Mr. Kahler on this point. Judge Jeanne E. Scott has allowed for the lawsuit filed by the Illinois pharmacists who were fired after refusing to distribute the Plan B to proceed to trial. Specifically she said that if proven at trial, the pharmacists’ allegations, “may establish that the object of the Rule [morning-after-pill mandate] is to target pharmacists, such as the Plaintiffs, who have religious objections to Emergency Contraceptives, for the purpose of forcing them either to compromise their religious beliefs or to leave the practice of pharmacy." Gee, that sounds an awful lot like what a certain legislators in Washington are trying to do.

Mr. Simpson: As a full-time professional firefighter, I am not free to deny emergency medical care because of my personal point of view. I am required to treat everyone equally.

AIW: Plan B is NOT medical care. It is an overdose of hormones that alters a woman’s normal healthy condition. It has negative short-term side-effects. The long-term side effects are yet to be determined, but if the known side-effects of OCs and other contraceptives are any indication of what's to come, the best interests of women’s health will not be served by passing out Plan B like Chicklets. Plan B is not health care anymore than salting a field is agriculture. If the firefighters of this state actually believe that contraception and abortion are “health care,” and if being pregnant or having sex is an “emergency” then God help us all.

Mr. Simpson: I'm glad you asked: (Mr. Simpson was asked to provide a source for his contention that “Thousands of abortions per year could be averted and millions in scarce health care dollars saved if emergency contraception were more readily available”, and provided this link.)

And this, “Kirsten Moore, president and CEO of Reproductive Health Technologies Project, conceded there is no evidence that easy access to the morning-after pill reduces the number of pregnancies or abortions.”

In real life, not six year old position papers published by people who make their living off pushing abortion or contraception, the facts show increased abortions and VD, here, here and here. The abortion industry makes $400 to $600 per abortion. Can you explain to me why they would push a drug that would supposedly cut their revenue so significantly?

AIW: Stand by what? The lie that EC will reduce the number of abortions and save millions in “scarce health care dollars”? The argument from a position of self-interest that you aren’t advocating a repeal of the First Amendment for certain groups of people? The laughable idea, but apparently flattering thought, that you are protecting women from some little old man in a white lab coat. Please. You really don't have a very high opinion of women if you think that we can't stand up to a pharmacist or are too stupid or lazy to find another pharmacy.

AIW: Do you remember those Seattle firemen who went into the burning building because they thought there might be some homeless people inside? There was no “scientific evidence” that they were inside but they didn’t want to take that chance that someone might die.

And why does the approved EC education program for pharmacists in Washington tell readers that preventing the implantion of the blastocyst in the endometrium is one of EC's mechanisms?Mr. Simpson: You are free to draw the line where you wish. I choose to demand that all pharmacists provide Plan B or turn in their licenses.

AIW: Back to Mr. Kahler’s and Judge Scott's point, which you’ve proved quite nicely – Shame on you for advocating the denial of First Amendment rights to the pharmacists of this state.

I would encourage you to open your mind, forget about anything you might owe Planned Parenthood, and peruse our other articles in this topic. It's never too late to do the right thing.

Abortion in Washington would like to dedicate the following song to every Washingtonian who is going to the polls tomorrow, especially the politicians who have it within their power to end America's holocaust. Listen. Watch

At right you can see an image of the flier that was sent out by the Washington State Democratic Party on behalf of Geoff Simpson (D) who is running for re-election 47th legislative district.

Below is a letter sent to Mr. Simpson from pharmacist C.J. Khaler. Below that is Simpson's resonse and further response from Khaler.

Original letterDear Rep. Simpson:I am writing you to ask you to do the right thing - publicly apologize to Jim Ramseth, the owner of Covington Pharmacy.

Recently the Washington State Democratic Central Committee mailed a postcard to the voters of your district that "criticized" Covington Pharmacy for taking a stand on the issue of the emergency contraception pill. Its owner Jim Ramseth refuses to dispense the pill on the basis of his freedom of conscience to act in accord with his ethics and morals. While refusing to dispense the pill, he provides to patients with such prescriptions a list with contact information of other pharmacies within a close proximity to his pharmacy where they may go to get the prescription filled.

Article 1, Section 11 of the Washington State Constitution states: “Absolute freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment, belief and worship, shall be guaranteed to every individual, and no one shall be molested or disturbed in person or property on account of religion”. As a member of our government, you must and should uphold our constitution and not violate it. Jim did nothing but act on this freedom of conscience that this constitution guarantees.In addition, Gov. Gregoire, has said “As Governor, I do not believe the state should discriminate against any citizen. I also believe that personal religious beliefs are protected by our Constitution.” I realize that your campaign office did not sponsor this postcard. However, the postcard does support your re-election. It is up to you to stand up and apologize to Jim and let the citizens of Washington know of your integrity.

Pharmacist: I repeat. As a member of our government, you must and should uphold our constitution and not violate it. Jim did nothing but act on this freedom of conscience that this constitution guarantees. The postcard singles out Covington Pharmacy and its owner, Jim Ramseth, for acting on his state guaranteed right of conscience. The postcard suggests that Covington Pharmacy has done something wrong, and that is just not right.

Simpson: I disagree that pharmacists should have the right to refuse to dispense emergency contraception.

Pharm: And why don't they have this right just as legislators, firefighters, physicians, nurses, and all citizens of the US who are guaranteed this First Amendment right? It is possible for patients to get legal prescriptions filled and pharmacists to be able to refuse morally objectionable presriptions if all are willing to be tolerant of different religious beliefs and find a way to work together.

Simpson: Thousands of abortions per year could be averted and millions in scarce health care dollars saved if emergency contraception were more readily available.

Pharm: What is the source for these statistics?(Editor's note: Widespread use of EC in Europe has shown to be ineffective in decreasing abortion rates, though rates of VD have increased.)

This is not an issue of access to legal prescriptions. There are adequate locations where a patient can access Plan B in Washington:a. WA pharmacies:With a prescription: at 1177 community pharmaciesWithout a prescription: 418 pharmacists have a collaborative agreement with a physician to dispense Plan Bb. WA physiciansc. WA health centers or departmentsd. WA hospital emergency roomse. Planned Parenthood of Columbia/Williamette: Overnight mail onMonday thru Fridayf. In advance as recommended on the Plan B website

In fact, Washington pharmacists have led the nation in allowing pharmacists to write prescriptions for Plan B under a protocol arrangement with a physician. Approximately 3600 pharmacists have been trained with the Emergency Contraception Provision by a Pharmacists training program through the Washington State Pharmacy Association. Approximately 200,000 Emergency Contraception prescriptions have been written and dispensed by pharmacists in WA since 1997. This number does not include Emergency Contraception prescriptions written by physicians and ARNPs.

This lack of availability is further supported by the fact that while only 25 formal complaints of a pharmacist refusing to fill a prescription have been filed with WA Board of Pharmacy for the period of June 28, 2004 to June 6, 2006 (2 years), only 1 was for Plan B. It has been estimated that the pharmacies in WA will fill 85,000,000 prescriptions in 2006 including approximately 24,000 prescriptions for Plan B.

Simpson: Plan B is not an abortifacient. It prevents fertilization from ever taking place.(Editor's note: Obviously Mr. Simpson hasn't done his research. Wonder who he's been talking to that would give him such erroneous information.)

Pharm: Your statement is not accepted by all health care professionals. According to The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th Ed, Keith L. Moore, PhD. & T.V.N. Persaud, MD, (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), the embryology text currently used at the UW School of Medicine: “(The zygote) results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization.”(p.2-18) “Postcoital birth control pills (‘morning after pills’) … These hormones prevent implantation, not fertilization. Consequently, they should not be called contraceptive pills. Conception occurs; but the blastocyst does not implant. It would be more appropriate to call them “contraimplantation pills.” Because the term abortion refers to a premature stoppage of a pregnancy, the term abortion could be applied to such an early termination of pregnancy.” (p. 532)

Handing out lists of other pharmacies is not adequate. Time is of the essence when unprotected sex has occurred, such as a condom breakage, and women should not be forced to go from pharmacy to pharmacy to prevent an unwanted pregnancy.

Pharm: A woman has from 72 to 120 hours (depending on your source) to take Plan B for effectivenes. See above statistics for sources of availability. In addition, she has a responsibility to seek the out the right health care professional to give her the care she desires. A woman may not go to any physician to get an abortion. Likewise, she may not go to any pharmacist to get a prescription for Plan B.

If we spent as much time in trying to figure out how to live together in a diverse society, as we spend in digging in our heels to support our position, this issue would no longer be debated.

Sunday, November 05, 2006

I ran into a friend of mine Thursday night and he relayed this conversation he had recently with a paid worker for the Eric Oeming (D) campaign.

Campaign Worker: Hello, my name Karen* is I'm calling to remind you to vote for Eric Oeming. He has the endorsement of NARAL, Planned Parenthood, etc.

Voter: Hi Karen. You sound like a nice lady. Maybe even a mom. Do you have kids?

Campaign Worker: Uh, yes I do. I have some babies at home.

Voter: Well, I think that's great. I have have 6 of my own. You know I just can't bring myself to vote for someone who supports the killing of little babies.

Campaign Worker: Uhhh...I never really thought about it that way before....well...You're right. I'm just doing this for the job. I need the money to take care of my family. God bless you. God bless you and your family.

Saturday, November 04, 2006

Roger Goodman (D) is running for the Washington state house in the 45th District against Jeffrey Possinger (R). I've gotten several campaign fliers from Mr. Goodman and after the last one I couldn't take it any more. The two most recent fliers only confirming my opinion that many of those claiming to have the smarts and education to lead our state are in fact complete fools and should not be allowed anywhere near Olympia.

Mr. Goodman's c.v. includes degrees from Harvard, Dartmouth and George Washington University. We'll try not to hold that against him but this statement on the latest flier shows how completely ignorant Mr. Goodman is about the abortion industry he has chosen to caucus with.

It's clear that the people you trust...National Organization for Women, NARAL Pro-Choice Washington, Planned Parenthood Votes! Washington...Trust Roger Goodman for state house.

Psst...Roger, very few people trust the abortion industry. They have done nothing but left a string of grief, sorrow and death in their wake. Here's the big secret NARAL didn't tell you -- pro-choice people don't even trust the abortion industry.

Here's the real kicker, Mr. Goodman also has a plan to legalize drugs, which despite the protestation of his wife in the other flier would increase access to drugs. What this mindless interloper doesn't recognize is that his whole plan is eerily similar to the plan that legalized abortion and is sure to bring about the same disastrous results: more not less, easier access for teens, a huge drain on the health and well-being of our citizens, and ultimately government protection and sponsorship.

In the same way that women facing an unexpected pregnancy need the love and assistance instead of the number for the local abortion mill, those suffering with addiction need real compassion and help, not a government sponsored drug give-away that isolates them from the people who love them and want to help them most.

Reading this article tells it all. Mr. Goodman even prefers to use the term "medicalize" as opposed to "legalization." Kinda like calling it "reproductive health" instead of abortion huh, Roger? We'll just put a nice new label on it, use the words "health", "medicine", "goodness" and "science", maybe throw in "tested by Harvard grads," and whamo you've got a wonderful new product ready for FDA approval.

If you like what legalization did for abortion, you're going love what it does for drugs. Maybe that's why the abortion industry is so supportive of Roger Goodman.

Here's Jeff Haley, of the Drug Policy Foundation in Bellevue -- "People who are selling need to have no incentive to sell." How to remove the incentive? "The only way we could think of," he said, "is to make these people state employees." Are these people high?! Why do I get the sneaking suspicion that tax-payer funded drugs for teens without their parent's consent would following right behind legalization? Teens will be able to get confidential drug assistance through their school nurse and "your parents don't need to know anything about it."

Do we really want the same failed abortion policy replicated in our drug policy?

Help send Mr. Goodman back to Cambridge where his half-baked ideas were cooked up in the first place. The people of the 45th district don't like abortion and we don't like drugs.

Despite all his education, or maybe because of it, Mr. Goodman just hasn't learned that the minds that got us into this mess aren't going to be the ones to get us out of it.

...I would now like to say a special word to women who have had an abortion...[many people are] aware of the many factors which may have influenced your decision, and [do] not doubt that in many cases it was a painful and even shattering decision. The wound in your heart may not yet have healed. Certainly what happened was and remains terribly wrong. But do not give in to discouragement and do not lose hope. Try rather to understand what happened and face it honestly. If you have not already done so, give yourselves over with humility and trust to repentance. The Father of mercies is ready to give you his forgiveness and his peace ... You will come to understand that nothing is definitively lost and you will also be able to ask forgiveness from your child...With the friendly and expert help and advice of other people, and as a result of your own painful experience, you can be among the most eloquent defenders of everyone's right to life. Through your commitment to life, whether by accepting the birth of other children or by welcoming and caring for those most in need of someone to be close to them, you will become promoters of a new way of looking at human life. -- Pope John Paul II